Posts Tagged ‘Kristen Stewart’

In a major coup for the young American actress who seems to polarise commentators and fans alike, Kristen Stewart has been named the new face of Chanel make-up. Head designer and creative director of the fashion house (as well as the Italian house Fendi and his own fashion label) Karl Lagerfeld has enthusiastically said he thinks she’s “one of the greatest actors of her generation”.

The 25-year-old actress will front a campaign called Collection Eyes 2016 and has already posed for photographs with acclaimed photographer Mario Testino.

According to the fashion house, Kristen posed “for a series of portraits that incarnate the different facets of a contemporary woman” for the new campaign, which will debut in March.

There is no doubt that Ms Stewart is remarkably photogenic. We would happily watch her read the phone book while biting her lip anxiously. And we are rather taken with her obvious disregard for some of the conventions of “stardom”, although we also note she doesn’t seem to shy away from pulling down a few mill per movie. Not that she should, but sometimes we think the lady doth protest too much the stresses and strains of being one of the highest paid thespians of the current era.

We are, however, yet to see a performance from her that we would consider, frankly, to be great acting, let alone one of the best of her generation. Still Mr Lagerfeld is entitled to his opinion just like everyone. But she has undoubtedly cornered the market in moody/gawky.

We look forward to the campaign. It will be interesting to see how Testino uses what has become such an iconic face in modern Western culture – primarily through the success of the Twilight series of movies – to represent the “different facets” of contemporary woman.

Yes, Stewart has made the pouty, icy stare her own motif. And the ingenue “grin”. But both are a relatively niche “look”, and have been somewhat done to death by the fashion industry. Mainly, we suspect, because it’s hard to photograph deeper emotions well.

Anyhow, it is to be hoped that the new campaign is more than variations on a well-worn theme.

We expect we’ll see evenings of sparkling glamour, fast cars, business, moody sunset shots, beaches, industrial grunge, street scenes yada yada yada. And all well and good. Fashion is about fantasy, after all.

When we also see someone like Kristen photographed up to her armpits in soap suds doing the dishes or cleaning her baby’s vomit off her blouse then we’ll be really impressed with the representation of all aspects of “the different facets of contemporary woman”.

We were fascinated by this exploration of the presentation of the female face throughout western art history, and grateful for Mrs Wellthisiswhatithink spotting it.

What is remarkable is how consistent what artists consider to be beautiful really is, despite the huge differences in representative style. Do take two minutes to watch it, as it is mesmerising and genuinely interesting. The Yo Yo Ma cello soundtrack is nice, too.

What is considered “beautiful” in a female face seems unchanging when viewed by many for whom visual appreciation is all. The symmetry of the two sides of the face … the eyes locked onto those of the viewer, or if gazing elsewhere, their openness and appeal … and often, the combination of challenge and supplication in the stare. Absolutely enthralling to see it demonstrated in this way.

The subject of what makes a woman beautiful – or anyone, for that matter – is often discussed on blogs, because, we suspect, everyone would like to think they are beautiful or could aspire to be “not bad”, at least.

Men are apparently more inclined to consider a woman beautiful if she has an average face.

That’s to say not too obviously pretty, not too obviously disjointed or unbalanced, not too obviously out of the norm.

The example the writer uses is Keira Knightley, the Brit actress whose face has launched a bazillion magazine covers. Men eulogise about her. But women? Nah, not so much. Interestingly, the writer proposes, and we agree, that Knightley’s appeal is that she isn’t perfect. Her nose has a bump in it. Her forehead is probably a bit expansive. Her teeth need fixing. And without professionally applied make-up she looks, well, ordinary. Those famous knife-edge cheekbones aren’t so obvious without skilful etching with blusher and shade. So: she’s cute, but ordinary.

Other women find those women uninteresting.

Jolie plays a man in Salt.

I have always found it fascinating that in answer to the parlour-dinner party-game question to straight women “So, come on, if you absolutely had to turn, which woman would you find attractive enough to bed?” the answer – way above a median average – is Angelina Jolie.

Whilst she has her male admirers, to be sure, (including, of course, the man often considered the most beautiful in the world by many, her husband Brad Pitt) men are far more equivocal about her appeal, but she comes up in straight womans’ lists all the time.

We have often thought that it is because her face has the capacity to be considered “fine”, “strong”, and “handsome” rather than girl-next-door-pretty, and also because so many representations of her in movies have been of her being, well, not to put too fine a point on, rather like a male action hero.

When the first Twilight movie came out to very mixed reviews, long before the Twihards took control of the process and turned it into such a successful movie franchise, we remember seeing a review of the movie which (amongst other criticisms) complained of Kristen Stewart being “blandly” beautiful.

It struck us as a rather odd and snippy comment at the time as she appeared to us then (and now) to be extremely pretty. But in light of the finding that we find average looking people “beautiful”, it makes perfect sense. Stewart is essentially a gawky kid grown up. Her eyes are a bit narrow – not giant and rounded like a sweet anime character – her lips are a bit odd – and her nose ends in a snub. Nevertheless, she has been on almost as many covers as Knightley.

In our experience, women loathe her.

Googling “stars without makeup” – for which there are umpteen thousands of web pages – shows how fascinated we are with the raw material that make-up artists are working with. But what is more interesting, we think, is that time after time what is revealed by the un-caked original form of the face is someone who could really be living, un-noticed and un-remarked, next door.

And how, very often, the un-made up star is actually – somehow, counter-culturally, even oddly – more alluring than the perfectly “crafted” version of her face. The German/American busineswoman, model and occasional actress Heidi Klum looks way more beautiful, in our opinion, in the picture on the left rather than on the right? No?

So we must come to the conclusion, we guess, that many girls and women who don’t think they are attractive might actually be hugely attractive to many men. Which is something to be celebrated, indeed shouted from the rooftops, we think.

The comment “Pffft – I just look like the girl next door” could actually be the key to landing the boy of your dreams.

As to what the boy of anyone’s dreams looks like, that’s another whole thing. Thank the good Lord that we don’t all have to look like Brad Pitt to find a girlfriend or even a mate, or the Wellthisiswhatithink line would have come to an ignominious and crashing halt.

And yes, we know that all beauty is really on the inside, before some spoilsport decides to tell us, but that’s not the point of the article. So shove off. 🙂

Wellthisiswhatithink has a confession to make: we have not read Fifty Shades of Grey, nor its sequels.

Charlie Hunnam

We have nothing, per se, against Dominant-Submissive kinkyness if it’s what floats yer boat, we just simply can’t abide poorly-written prose.

Dakota Johnson

There’s too much good prose we don’t get time to read as it is. Let alone finding time for our true love, poetry.

So many people whose opinions we respect have assured us that the series is awful that we really can’t be bothered to set ourselves up for disappointment, no matter how many bedside tables the books have ended up on, discretely hidden beneath the Sunday papers.

(The same is admittedly not true of our TV viewing habits. In Chez Wellthisiswhatithink, we breathlessly await the next in the Spartacus series, which presumably will be called something like “Spartacus: Sorry, The Hero Died In The Last Series, So There’s No Attempt At A Story, Just Plenty Of Tits and Blood All Over The Screen”. Hoo-hah. I strongly suspect the next series of Game of Thrones, with half the cast now slaughtered, will be similarly enjoyable.)

However, despite our misgivings FSOG (as it is known by the cogniscenti) has captivated its (mainly female) audience, and I suppose anything that prompts people to read is a “Good Thing” (capital G, capital T), and anything that simultaneously encourages people to be less uptight about sex is a “Very Good Thing” (capital V, G and T).

(Actually, contradicting ourselves promptly, we admit we even quite enjoyed the Twilight saga while conceding to anyone who asked why we had our head buried in them that the books were not great literature. Then again, and that said, we could hardly turn a page without wanting to throttle the ever-more-pathetic Bella Swann, a desire which transferred instantly to her on-screen avatar, Kristen Stewart.)

We will also, Dear Reader, gloss over the fact that fire brigades everywhere are being called to suburban homes to free people who have locked themselves to the bed in handcuffs and then forgotten that they’ve left the key out of reach. (Hang on a minute, guys. Aren’t you supposed to be doing this with someone? Ed.)

Such is the price, one supposes, of life imitating art, imitating life, er …

Anyhow: on effort alone we should say “well done” to authoress EJ James, who must be, by now, a very wealthy lady indeed, and get onto the point of this story.

The point of the story is that after months of fevered speculation, we now know the two major leads for the much-touted movie, at least.

Johnson and Hunnam, er, again. Cute, huh?

Dakota Johnson, who appeared in The Social Network and 21 Jump Street as well as the Fox show Ben and Kate, has been officially cast as Anastasia Steele. Her male counterpart, Christian Grey, will be played by none other than Charlie Hunnam, star of Pacific Rim and Sons of Anarchy.

The film is set for an August 2014 release, with a screenplay by Kelly Marcell. Despite the story obviously including a vast raft of sexual matter, the team working on the movie are determined to ensure it achieves an “R” (not “X”) rating in North America.

While women have been breathlessly awaiting the identity of Christian Grey, almost as much interest has been generated by the choice of Ms. Johnson to play his submissive virgin lover.

Her first notable screen role was in the multi-Academy Award-winning 2010 feature The Social Network and subsequent films include the upcoming feature Need for Speed, 21 Jump Street, and Universal Pictures’ The Five-Year Engagement. She also starred as Kate in the Fox Network comedy series Ben and Kate, which aired during the 2012-2013 season, and is currently shooting the feature film Cymbeline.

Former model Johnson is the daughter of Miami Vice star Don Johnson and Oscar-nominated actress Melanie Griffith, and had her screen debut with her mother in the 1999 film Crazy in Alabama.

Anyway, they’re both very pretty, which I’m sure is all that most of the audience will be worrying about. When it comes out we are equally sure it will mercilessly panned by critics, and go on to make squillions.

The roles were apparently two of the most desired of the current season, and the producers have received some praise for casting relatively un-known actors (we did say, relatively) to do the heavy lifting for the forecast blockbuster.

Meanwhile, other producers will have to wait awhile before capitalising on the young talent’s sudden super-stardom.

Apparently, the Beckhams are only the world’s fourth highest earning celebrity couple, trailing in miserably far behind Gisele Bundchen and Tom Brady (her supermodel, him American footballer for the New England Patriots). Beyonce Knowles and Jay-Z trolled in second, (someone will tell me who he is, I suppose), with Brad and Angelina a mere third on the Forbes list. Rounding out the top five were Kristen “Why does everyone think I’m miserable?” Stewart – perhaps you’ve complained about the intrusion of fame just once too often to be credible, dearie? – and the adorably shy and tongue-tied Robert Pattinson, who both apparently scooped up about $20 mill each from staring breathlessly at each other.

I happen to think David Beckham seems to be a rather nice bloke, and Victoria seems a level-headed enough sort, but I can’t help but vomit a little into my mouth when I see these lists and what such people earn. I don’t resent their money, I just resent that people like psychiatric nurses, country postmen and paramedics don’t earn as much.

As a society, our value systems are shot, and that’s why objectionable little scrotums like the UK’s recent rioters think it’s OK to rip off fellow battlers when they get a chance. “It’s only fair, innit?” So there.

Meanwhile, a “rioter” in the UK has been sentenced to six months in jail for stealing two bottles of water from a shop which someone else had previously broken into.

This entirely proportionate and reasonable response will, of course, do everything to make these nasty little bastards respect the state and what it stands for even more.

Luckily, while him and his mates are inside (when they could, one supposes, be outside cleaning up the mess they’ve made) they will, at least, learn a trade.